National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy - Construction Industry ...

the national infrastructure maintenance strategy 

in support of ASGISA and government growth objectives 

public works 

Department: 

Public Works 

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

ISBN 978-0-621-37238-0 

July 2007 

Copyright © CIDB 2007

“… looking after both old and new infrastructure is a challenge 

and an opportunity …” 

“... we have tended not to put maintenance high on the 

agenda … not only are we putting it high on the agenda 

now … we can launch it as an industry in its own right.” 

Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka 

November 2005

contents 

page 

definitions and abbreviations 

preface 

1. introduction 

2. the importance of infrastructure and its maintenance 

3. situation review 

4. action plan 

i. strengthening the regulatory framework governing 

planning and budgeting for infrastructure maintenance 

ii. assisting institutions with non-financial resources 

iii. developing the maintenance industry 

iv. strengthening monitoring, evaluation and reporting, and 

feeding this into a process of continuous improvement 

5. conclusions 

annexure a: maintenance reviews, by sector 

a. provincial roads 

b. health and education facilities in ownership of provincial 

governments 

c. public bindings in ownership of national government 

d. municipalities 

e. water boards 

f. water resources infrastructure in ownership of national 

governments 

g. acsa 

h. transnet 

i. telkom 

1 

2 

3 

5 

7 

13 

13 

15 

16 

16 

17 

18 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

28 

annexure b: 

how substandard maintenance can manifest 

itself in service delivery 

30

definitions and abbreviations 

ACSA 

Airports Company of South Africa 

IMESA 

Institution of Municipal Engineers of 

Southern Africa 

ASGISA 

Accelerated and Shared Growth 

Initiative for South Africa 

JIPSA 

Joint Initiative on Priority Skills 

Acquisition 

BBBEE 

Broad-Based Black Economic 

Empowerment 

KPI 

Key Performance Indicator 

BEE 

cidb 

Black Economic Empowerment 

Construction Industry Development 

Board 

Maintenance 

MFMA 

Embraces planning, budgeting and 

implementation of repair of infrastructure, 

refurbishment and renewal, and provision 

for replacement of that infrastructure. 

Municipal Finance Management Act 

CMIP 

Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure 

Programme 

MIG 

Municipal Infrastructure Grant 

CSIR 

Council for Scientific and Industrial 

Research 

MTEF 

Medium-Term Expenditure Framework 

DBSA 

Development Bank of Southern Africa 

NPA 

National Ports Authority 

DPE 

Department of Public Enterprises 

PFMA 

Public Finance Management Act 

dplg 

Department of Provincial and Local 

Government 

PSA 

Public Service Act 

DPSA 

Department of Public Service and 

Administration 

RED 

Regional Electricity Distributor 

DoRA 

Division of Revenue Act 

SABC 

South African Broadcasting Corporation 

DoT 

DPW 

DWAF 

Department of Transport 

Department of Public Works 

Department of Water Affairs and 

Forestry 

SALGA 

SANRAL 

SAPO 

South African Local Government 

Association 

South African National Roads Agency 

Limited 

South African Port Operations 

EPWP 

Expanded Public Works Programme 

SAPS 

South African Police Service 

GAMAP 

GIAMA 

IDIP 

Generally Accepted Municipal 

Accounting Practice 

Government Immovable Assets 

Management Act 

Infrastructure Delivery Improvement 

Programme 

SETA 

SMME 

SOE 

Sector Education and Training 

Authority 

Small, micro and medium sized 

enterprise 

State Owned Enterprise 

IDP 

IDT 

Integrated Development Plan 

Independent Development Trust 

Strategic Plan 

Rolling Five Year Strategic Plan that all 

national and provincial departments 

are required in terms of the PFMA and 

PSA to produce each year 

1 

national infrastructure maintenance strategy

preface 

Cabinet has recognized the importance of infrastructure maintenance within 

government and the role that effective maintenance will play in support of 

ASGISA, and to this end approved the National Infrastructure Maintenance 

Strategy (NIMS) in August 2006. 

The National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy draws extensively on a 

framework document developed by the Department of Public Works, the 

Construction Industry Development Board (cidb) and the Council for Scientific 

and Industrial Research (CSIR). This document is published here because of its 

importance. 

The Department of Public Works has been tasked with leading the 

implementation of the programme to deliver on the strategy. The Department 

and the cidb have been tasked with overall management of the programme, and 

the cidb will provide a fulltime programme manager to take responsibility for the 

programme. 

national infrastructure maintenance strategy 

2

1. introduction 

1.1 Objective of this document 

This document describes the National 

Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy, a coordinated 

programme of actions to address the 

issues summarised in the following problem 

statement. 

Delivery” needs to be understood 

as embracing not just the 

construction of infrastructure 

but the operation and maintenance 

of that infrastructure 

throughout its intended life. 

1.2 Problem statement 

All three spheres of government, together with the 

SOEs, manage major portfolios of immovable 

infrastructure assets. (For the purposes of this 

report, "public sector" includes state owned 

enterprises (SOEs) such as Eskom, Transnet and 

Telkom.) While there is much emphasis on 

“delivery” of infrastructure, delivery does not end 

with the commissioning of the infrastructure asset. 

Once the infrastructure has been commissioned, 

various activities must be carried out which are 

necessary to ensure that it continues to perform 

such as the allocation of necessary budgets and 

the retention of appropriate staff to maintain the 

operation of the assets. “Delivery” needs to be 

universally understood as embracing not just 

constructing the infrastructure, but the 

appropriate operation and maintenance 

thereafter, for the whole design life of the asset. 

In this document, "maintenance" is used as a 

generic term to include planned maintenance, 

repair, refurbishment and renewal, and provision 

for replacement of the infrastructure. 

In 1994 the democratic government evaluated the 

imbalance in infrastructure that characterised the 

nation, and embarked on an ambitious plan to put 

matters right by addressing the backlog. For 

example, the government has invested 

significantly in providing water to 15 million 

people. Other infrastructure provided at the same 

time, such as sanitation and road infrastructure, 

has further improved the quality of life of the 

people of South Africa. Government is committed 

to increasing levels of infrastructure investment at 

national, provincial and municipal government 

level as a foundation for service delivery, economic 

growth and social development. 

The blueprint for a new South African Economy, the 

Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South 

Africa (ASGISA), has identified six "binding 

constraints", which, if removed or mitigated, 

would have a considerable effect on accelerating 

and sharing growth in the short to medium term. 

One of these is the provision of infrastructure. 

Clearly, the impact of increased infrastructure 

investment would be negated should that 

infrastructure fail to deliver services, and therefore 

ASGISA recognises the need to simultaneously 

address backlogs for investment in maintenance 

and in new infrastructure. This is also recognised 

in "Government's Programme of Action for 2006" - 

one of the actions is to complete the plan for 

maintenance of general public infrastructure. 

The fact that government has focussed on new 

infrastructure to address backlogs from the past is 

not the problem, and government should not 

change its focus in this regard. The challenge is to 

supplement this by also focussing on the 

maintenance of both new and old infrastructure at 

the same time as providing the new infrastructure 

needed to address backlogs. 

All spheres of government, as well as state owned 

enterprises (SOEs), face the challenge of operating 

and maintaining infrastructure, although to 

varying extents. Some public sector institutions 

maintain their infrastructure at a high standard. 

Budgets are adequate (even if barely so), skilled 

staff are in place, leadership is committed, and 

policies support sound infrastructure maintenance 

practices. Other sectors have lagged behind, but 

the risks of this are recognised, and in some 

sectors maintenance needs are being addressed by 

targeted programmes. 

Of wider importance than programmes targeted at 

individual sectors, the Government Immovable 

Asset Management Bill is before Parliament, and 

guidelines for asset management planning are 

being drafted. The Act will be binding on national, 

provincial and local government and will guide 

improved public sector infrastructure asset 

management. 

3 


"Infrastructure maintenance": 

For the purposes of this document, the term 

"infrastructure maintenance" embraces 

planned maintenance and repair, 

refurbishment and renewal, and provision 

for replacement of that infrastructure. 

If government spends its maintenance 

budget on fixing infrastructure only after 

it has already broken down, then it is 

effectively throwing away a large 

proportion of that budget funds that 

could rather have been used elsewhere to 

improve the quality of life of its citizens. 

This is because it is much cheaper to carry 

out periodic preventative maintenance 

than to do repairs when infrastructure 

breaks down. 

"The following are the principles of 

immovable asset management …. 

[inter alia] in relation to an acquisition, it 

must be considered whether …. the cost of 

the immovable asset as well as operational 

and maintenance cost throughout its life 

cycle justifies its acquisition in relation to 

the cost of the service … [and] when an 

immovable asset is acquired or disposed of 

best value for money must be realised.” 

("Government Immovable Asset 

Management Bill", clauses 5(1) (c) and (e).) 

Despite the good performance in some sectors, 

there is strong evidence that in other sectors much 

of the infrastructure, of both pre- and post-1994 

vintage, is not being properly maintained. Older 

infrastructure is often not being refurbished and 

renewed when it needs to be, and there is 

inadequate planned preventative maintenance on 

new infrastructure. 

Wastewater treatment works are of particular 

concern. Other sectors of concern include water 

treatment works, water and sewer reticulation, and 

on-site sanitation, some provincial and municipal 

roads, and some provincial health and education 

facilities. Ultimately, unless maintenance is 

improved in these sectors, funds to address the 

cost of repairs and unplanned replacements (as 

opposed to planned, preventative measures) will 

have to be found from capital budgets, which will 

severely limit the programme for addressing 

backlogs and expanding service delivery. 

Generally, the larger institutions are performing 

the best with regard to maintenance - for example 

DWAF water resources, the larger water boards, 

Airports Company (ACSA), Telkom, Eskom, 

national roads (SANRAL), Transnet and most of the 

metropolitan municipalities. On the other hand, 

some services in some of the rural-based 

municipalities have already failed. 

From an accrual accounting perspective, there is 

no real saving in reducing maintenance budgets, 

because the resulting reduction in asset values is 

greater than the saving in maintenance. 

Furthermore, there are other significant costs 

associated with inadequate maintenance and 

consequent breakdowns, including loss of 

production which can cause serious economic 

loss, in some cases health risks, injury or loss of 

life, and the cost of alternative emergency 

measures needed during breakdowns. 

Given that some public sector institutions are not 

likely to be able to improve their maintenance 

policies and practices without strong direction and 

assistance from national government, a holistic 

national infrastructure strategy is needed, to 

ensure that existing and new infrastructure is 

maintained in good working order. 


4

2. the importance of infrastructure and its maintenance 

2.1 A means to an end 

Infrastructure is a means to an end. It supports 

quality of life and the economy if it delivers 

accessible and reliable services that individuals 

and institutions need. Access and reliability imply 

several issues, including that the service must be 

sustainable if not, the infrastructure (water pipes, 

for example) may continue to exist, but the service 

will cease (the water will no longer flow). Clearly, in 

order to achieve its purpose, infrastructure must 

be effectively operated and maintained. 

If the appropriate infrastructure services have been 

provided, and these services are effectively 

managed, they promote economic growth, equity, 

sustainable development and job creation. 

Individuals benefit from the provision of water, 

sanitation, transport, shelter, energy and 

telecommunications infrastructure. Communities 

are less prone to sickness; enjoy better access to 

facilities, to work opportunities and to markets; 

and income-earning opportunities arise in service 

delivery and in construction and maintenance of 

infrastructure. From an economic development 

point of view, infrastructure lowers the cost of 

production and consumption, and makes it easier 

for participants in the economy to enter into 

transactions. Increasing the efficiency of 

infrastructure will thus improve growth 

performance, service provision and development 

outcomes. Interruptions or, worse, breakage of 

services have the opposite effect, often with 

serious social and economic consequences. 

2.2 The cost of not maintaining infrastructure 

It is self-evident that failure of infrastructure 

services has consequences for human 

development, poverty alleviation and economic 

growth. The cost of not maintaining infrastructure 

is no longer affordable to South Africa. In some 

sectors it is negating the impact of the 

infrastructure development undertaken to date 

and planned for the future. 

Repairs will inevitably have to be undertaken, at 

greater expense when total breakdown has 

occurred. The saying "a stitch in time saves nine" 

applies. The cost of the repair work will be higher 

than if the maintenance had been undertaken in 

time. In addition, the infrastructure may have to be 

replaced well before the end of its originally 

intended life. Government would then in effect be 

paying twice for the construction of that 

infrastructure - this cannot continue, as it is a cost 

that strikes at the heart of government's growth 

objectives. 

2.3 Infrastructure maintenance: a strategic 

tool 

While the importance of the provision of 

infrastructure to support socio-economic growth 

has to date been well recognised within 

government, the potential of infrastructure 

maintenance as a powerful tool of economic 

growth and service delivery needs to come more to 

the fore. 

Infrastructure maintenance must be regarded as a 

strategic tool to promote improved service 

delivery, to unlock funding to extend 

infrastructure to historically disadvantaged 

communities, and to support the nation's 

economy. Maintenance of existing infrastructure 

should not be seen as of secondary importance to 

the apparently more attractive prospect of new 

infrastructure. 

Appropriate infrastructure maintenance also 

creates jobs. For example, maintenance needs to 

be done year after year, and personnel to do this 

maintenance will therefore always be needed - not 

just for the limited period of construction, but also 

for the whole of the designed life of the 

infrastructure. Furthermore, much maintenance 

Investing in infrastructure operation and 

maintenance offers outstanding 

opportunities for economic stimulation: jobs 

are created, capital expenditure goes 

further, and sustainable delivery can be 

achieved, while political imperatives and 

community aspirations can be met. 

5 


can only be done, or can best be done, by labourintensive 

methods, and it is thus important that 

government's plans for employment creation and 

the Expanded Public Works Programme give 

prominence to maintenance. Finally, there is 

substantial scope for maintenance contracts to 

promote SMME development, Broad-Based Black 

Economic Empowerment (BBBEE), involvement of 

women and youth, and local employment coupled 

with appropriate enterprise development. 

Based on a conservative estimate of 12 equivalent 

full time jobs per million Rand (6 direct and a 

further 6 indirect or induced), it is estimated that a 

maintenance budget of R20 billion will provide 

employment to approximately 240 000 people for 

a year. Where labour-intensive methods are 

appropriate, for example on civil engineering 

works, much greater levels of employment are 

attainable (approximately 50 jobs per million 

Rand). 

Maintaining infrastructure comes at a cost, but this 

is a prudent investment which will save 

government significantly in the medium to long 

term and will promote both economic and human 

capital development. 

2.4 Infrastructure life-cycle investment 

The cost of maintenance of an infrastructure asset 

is very much determined not just by the size, 

nature, capacity etc of that infrastructure, but by 

how well it was designed, materials specified and 

used, the quality of construction, etc. Generally, at 

least half of the lifetime cost of an infrastructure 

asset must be borne after it has been 

commissioned. In other words, the cost of 

planning, design and construction of the asset is 

invariably less than half, sometimes even less than 

20%, of the lifetime cost. Decisions are 

nevertheless frequently taken in order to "save 

cost" at planning, design or construction stage, 

despite it often being possible to show that these 

increase costs of operation, through the life of that 

asset, that far exceed the initial "saving". It might 

for example be that the choice of less durable 

construction materials is the direct cause, later, of 

having to prematurely refurbish or even replace 

the infrastructure. Or savings on the robustness of 

foundations later manifest themselves in damage 

to the infrastructure that has been placed on those 

foundations. 

Similarly, injudicious design, or poor construction 

workmanship, if not detected and timeously 

corrected, will lead to operational problems with 

resultant significant costs. 

Furthermore, design and construction that does 

not take into account practical operation and 

particularly maintenance issues may result in 

costly errors. For example, special care needs to be 

given in the design to those elements of 

infrastructure that will need to be accessed in 

order to be repaired or serviced. The more difficult 

those elements will be to access, the more care 

must be given to choice of construction material 

and robustness of design, so as to reduce the 

frequency of access, and to reduce the probability 

that the elements will malfunction and have to be 

accessed. 

To conclude: The decision to procure 

infrastructure must be guided by understanding of 

the life-cycle costs of that infrastructure. It must 

take into account not just the relatively brief 

design and construction period, but the far longer 

period of operation, and the far greater costs of 

operation. It must understand that "cheap" design 

and construction will almost inevitably mean 

expensive (or unreliable) operation and 

maintenance. It must also understand that poor 

workmanship will have the same effect. 

Life-cycle asset management means considering 

options and strategies, and costs, throughout the 

life of the asset, from planning to disposal. The 

objective should to be to look for lowest long-term 

cost (rather than short-term savings) when making 

decisions. 


6

3. situation review 

The stock of public sector 

infrastructure is significant. 

Current replacement cost of this 

infrastructure, excluding that 

owned by the SOEs, 

exceeds R 1000 billion. 

3.1 Introduction 

The stock of infrastructure that is owned by 

government and its agencies is already major and 

is increasing at a rapid rate. However the 

maintenance of this stock varies greatly from 

sector to sector, and, sometimes, also from 

institution to institution within a sector. Specific 

sectors have their own unique challenges. Some 

examples of these are described in Section 3.2 and 

in Annexure A. Commonalities and differences 

between sectors are described and discussed in 

Section 3.3. 

Annexure A overviews sector by sector the state of 

infrastructure and facilities, the state of their 

management, and current initiatives to enhance 

maintenance. It does this in respect of most of the 

principal strategic sectors, viz roads and 

stormwater, water, sanitation, rail, airports, 

harbours, telecommunication, education and 

health facilities, and government buildings. For 

convenience of gathering and analysing the 

information, the sections of Annexure A discuss 

infrastructure under the headings of the 

institutions or groups of institutions that own the 


This listing does not attempt to cover all of the 

infrastructure and facilities owned by the public 

sector (for example Metrorail and SA Rail 

Commuter Corporation, Eskom, SANRAL, National 

Parks, the SABC, and the housing in public sector 

ownership are excluded). However it does 

represent the majority of the strategic 

infrastructure owned by the public sector - 

defining "strategic" as that most pertinent to 

supporting government's growth and poverty 

eradication objectives. Although information 

made available on several of the sectors is sparse, 

it is nonetheless possible to draw strategic 

conclusions from the overviews. 

In Annexure B are generic remarks by types of 

infrastructure: what goes wrong if maintenance is 

substandard, and what is needed in respect of 

maintenance. 

3.2 Analysis 

3.2.1 Introduction 

The review of the information in Annexure A 

indicates that all public sector institutions could, in 

respect of the state of their infrastructure and 

facilities maintenance, be placed in two broad 

categories described below and set out in Table 

3.2: 

• Category A: They have sound asset 

management plans for their strategic 

infrastructure (if not for all of their 

infrastructure), maintenance budgets are 

adequate (even if they could always do with 

more funding), capacities and skills are 

adequate, and their leadership has a strong 

maintenance ethic. OR: They are largely missing 

one or more of the elements listed above -- for 

example they might have the plans and the 

skills, but maintenance budgets, although 

substantial, are not adequate. However they 

recognise this, improvement is taking place, 

and further improvement is programmed. 

• Category B: These are not as strong in each of 

the elements as the institutions of Category A 

are. Furthermore, this situation is not 

improving, and might even be deteriorating. 

OR: They do not have asset management plans, 

maintenance budgets are not adequate, they 

lack capacity, and their leadership does not 

regard maintenance to be very important. 

Section 3.2.2 describes features of institutions in 

Category A, and highlights some of the factors that 

justify an institution being placed in Category A. 

Section 3.2.3 does likewise for Category B 

institutions. 

3.2.2 Category A 

Features 

Category A institutions generally have a good 

knowledge of the location and extent of the assets 

that they own. Knowledge of asset condition is 

excellent in some institutions, ranging to just 

adequate in others - knowledge of maintenance 

performance varies accordingly. 

The institutions vary greatly in adequacy of budget 

and skills. Even the best-resourced express a need 

for greater maintenance budgets, and have staff 

vacancies or outsource work that they would prefer 

to do in-house. 

7 


“If road maintenance is delayed, the cost for 

repairs, rehabilitation etc. increases 

exponentially. According to SANRAL [South 

African National Roads Agency Ltd], a delay 

in road maintenance of 3 to 5 years 

increases the required repair costs by 

between 6 and 18 times. Also, because of 

the subsequent decrease in riding quality, 

the vehicle operating cost of roads could 

easily double, with the associated ripple 

effect on the economy.” 

("Road infrastructure strategic framework 

for South Africa", DoT 2002:81-82) 

Category 

A 

B 

Brief 

description 

Adequate 

and/or 

improving 

maintenance 

Inadequate 

maintenance 

and/or 

deteriorating 

Institutions 

SANRAL, national 

government public 

buildings, DWAF, ACSA, 

Eskom, Telkom, Transnet, 

some provincial roads, 

some provincial health and 

education, some 

municipalities, some water 

boards 

Some provincial roads, 

some provincial health and 

education, most 

municipalities, some water 

boards 

Table 3.2: 

Public sector institutions by their state of maintenance 

The condition of the infrastructure and facilities 

assets of institutions in this category ranges from 

good to fair, with a small proportion being poor. 

Where the condition is poor, the institutions are 

addressing this or planning to address this in the 

short term. Institutions' response to trends, where 

these are known, show acknowledgement by the 

institutions of the need to not let standards fall. 

Where trends in condition have been downward, 

this has been recognised, and backlogs are being 

addressed with urgency - Transnet (most 

pertinently, Spoornet) and City Power 

(Johannesburg) are good examples of this. 

Safety considerations play a major role in 

determining maintenance policies of some 

institutions - Eskom and ACSA are good examples. 

In the case of DWAF, maintenance backlogs of 

significant portions of the water resources 

infrastructure that it owns are being addressed and 

substantial resources have been allocated to 

maintenance and refurbishment. 

A few municipalities and water boards are 

financially stable. These include the metropolitan 

municipalities, some district and local 

municipalities closest to the metropolitan areas, 

and Rand Water and Umgeni Water. The condition 

of their infrastructure is either already good or is 

on an upward trend. Some of them are even in a 

position to be able to assist other areas - for 

example the involvement of Rand Water in 

Bushbuckridge for several years. 

A minority of the provincial roads authorities are in 

Category A. These authorities are those that are 

well aware of location, extent and current 

condition of the assets, and, thanks to databases 

that have been maintained for many years, of the 

trends in condition. They all report a steady slide in 

condition until the end of the 1990s, since which 

time they have held (even if tenuously) or even 

slightly improved the condition of their paved 

roads systems. 

The electricity distribution networks of Eskom and 

some of the larger municipalities are in a generally 

good state compared to those of the smaller 

municipalities. This has provided a strong 

motivation for the establishment of the regional 

electricity distributors with a single-focused, wellresourced 

and financially stable organisation 

better able to run a network than a small, 

multipurpose, poorly resourced and financially 

strapped organisation could. 

Positive drivers 

The principal positive drivers of the ability to at 

least prevent further deterioration, and in many 

instances to improve infrastructure or facility asset 

condition, are: 

• The political will and leadership in the 

institutions, that the facilities and 

infrastructure will be maintained in order to 

sustain delivery of services; 


8

• initiatives from another sphere that drive or 

facilitate some of the responsibilities of the 

institutions (for example the current 

compilation of a nation-wide schools "register 

of needs"); 

• adequate maintenance resources, even if barely 

so; 

• targeted investment (for example the Hospital 

Revitalisation Grant for the upgrading of 

hospitals and the building of new ones) and 

independent monitoring of expenditure; 

• overloading of infrastructure is limited through 

appropriate management (as it is on provincial 

roads, for example); 

• safety considerations have motivated 

maintenance; 

• older facilities were well designed and 

constructed, and have been well maintained 

over the years, or have required little 

maintenance; 

• newer facilities have been well designed and 

constructed; 

• the institutions have retained more-or-less 

adequate skills and experience, and in-house 

skills are leveraged by hiring skills from 

outside; and 

• ring-fencing and/or commercialisation of 

service entities (for example the municipal 

service entities Johannesburg Water and City 

Power, the provincial roads agency in Limpopo, 

and the national roads agency SANRAL - or they 

have even been restructured as listed 

companies e.g. Telkom). 

Also, unlike many of the Category B institutions, 

those of Category A: 

• have been subject to only limited redemarcation 

(of responsibilities or physical 

boundaries), excepting that service divisions 

have sometimes been ringfenced, with 

relatively little redeployment of staff across 

institutional boundaries compared with the 

changes undergone by Category B institutions; 

• were large and well-resourced organisations to 

start with, so the scale of change of 

responsibilities and of institutional 

restructuring hasn't been significant, and 

institutional memory (among other things) has 

largely remained intact; 

• have retained a number of key staff; and 

• have remained relatively financially stable (even 

though some have required heavy subsidising 

to stay solvent, but the subsidies have been 

forthcoming), and are thus able to fund 

significant infrastructure maintenance 

programmes. 

That some have become more commercially 

orientated, and even entrepreneurial, has also 

helped to strengthen and focus them, and make 

them much more aware of the need for 

maintenance (and also of the need to upgrade 

infrastructure, improve service, and extend 

coverage of service), and therefore willing to fund 

maintenance. Telkom, ACSA, Johannesburg Water 

and City Power are good examples here. None of 

the Category Bs has had this incentive. 

Problems of ageing infrastructure and staff 

Most of the Category A institutions will in the short 

to medium term have to face a major twofold 

problem. That is: 

• Infrastructure construction peaked in the 1960s 

and 1970s, and that infrastructure, having 

reached the end of its design life, now needs 

major refurbishment or replacement. 

• A large proportion of their trained staff, 

particularly their technical staff, will be retiring 

in the next 10 years, taking with them much of 

the institutions' skill, experience and 

institutional memories. Data capture can ease 

(but not eliminate) the loss of the latter. 

Passing on the skills and experience will be 

more difficult, given inter alia that there is in 

most of these institutions a shortage of 

adequately trained younger staff, and especially 

of those with 15-25 years experience, the group 

most able to benefit from the skills and 

experience transfer, and utilise what they have 

gained. Also, mentoring programmes are not 

as they could be, and staff are often too busy to 

mentor or be mentored. 

This twofold problem is of particular concern to 

DWAF water resources, provincial roads 

authorities, Transnet, and most of the largest 20 or 

30 municipalities. 

9 


3.2.3 Category B 

Features 

Insufficient attention is being paid by the Category 

B institutions to the maintenance of the services 

infrastructure for which they are responsible. In 

addition, many have, due in part to neglect as well 

as changes in resource allocation and the pressure 

of increased demand, built up a substantial 

maintenance backlog. Competing demands on 

limited budgets (and on staff and other resources) 

severely constrain the proper maintenance of 

infrastructure, leading to service interruptions and 

other shortcomings. 

The "large proportion of their trained staff will be 

retiring" problem, described in Section 3.2.2, is a 

common problem in Category B. That is, they will 

be leaving, or they have already left during the last 

few years (many retired early). 

Three major issues significant to water boards and 

especially municipalities are: 

• These two sectors have been subject to radical 

change since 1994. There have been two 

rounds of demarcation of municipal 

boundaries, in 1996 and again in 2000. Each of 

the rounds has seen major changes in political 

leadership, staff and systems -- many staff have 

left, or been assigned new duties or new areas, 

many new staff have joined, and staff profiles 

have changed. Responsibility for the 

administration of and provision of services to 

very large areas of deprivation has been 

assigned to unified administrations. Among 

these administrations that have struggled the 

most to provide services have been those 

responsible for geographical areas that had few 

resources even prior to 1996, and in which 

there was little existing local foundation upon 

which to build the new administration. New 

responsibilities have been assigned to 

municipalities and water boards. National 

government funding has enabled the 

acquisition of new infrastructure on a very large 

scale. Old funding sources have fallen away, 

and new ones have come in. It is not surprising 

therefore that for these reasons alone many 

municipalities and water boards have struggled 

to give the necessary attention to maintenance 

issues. 

No comprehensive national 

data on the condition and age of 

[electrical distribution] 

infrastructure exists. 

(NER 2004:2) 

• Due to the dispersed and decentralised nature 

of municipalities and water boards, there is no 

comprehensive dataset on the condition of their 

infrastructure assets, but the indications are 

that this infrastructure is generally not in a good 

state outside the metropolitan and other large 

urban areas, although there are some 

exceptions. This is largely due to the 

widespread inadequacy of institutional 

capacity, both technical and financial, to 

operate and maintain the infrastructure - for 

example, many municipalities have no technical 

staff above operator level. Many of the 

municipalities suffer chronic financial problems 

and this considerably exacerbates this plight. 

The effects, such as worsening effluent quality 

from many wastewater treatment works, are 

cause for great concern. Information on trends 

in the condition of infrastructure is almost 

completely lacking outside of a select few of the 

municipalities and water boards. 

• Furthermore, it is clear that an unintended 

c o n s e q u e n c e o f c o n s t r u c t i n g m o r e 

infrastructure is in many municipalities 

resulting in a widening of the gap in 

infrastructure maintenance, as even new 

infrastructure requires maintenance. Without 

concerted assistance, many already stressed 

municipalities will be unable to maintain 

increasing amounts of infrastructure. 

Summarising features of some of the sectors other 

than water boards and municipalities: 

• The condition of the majority of provincial 

assets (and recalling that a minority of the 

provincial roads, health and education 

institutions lie in Category A) varies from fair to 

poor. A significant proportion of the health and 

education facilities, and especially their 

mechanical and electrical equipment, is in a 

poor state. 

• Particularly lacking are overviews of trends in 

the state of performance, and maintenance, of 


10

these same facilities. Trends in provincial roads 

condition are better known, and it is clear that in 

most instances these trends are downwards. 

Given budget shortages, conscious decisions 

have been taken to reduce maintenance to 

selected roads (invariably the lowest order of 

roads). 

Causes 

In Category B institutions, the principal causes 

(noting that not all causes are applicable to all 

institutions) of the inability to catch up on 

maintenance backlogs and to run preventative 

maintenance programmes are: 

• lack of political and senior administrative 

direction to maintain facilities and 

infrastructure in order to sustain delivery of 

services; 

• significant institutional change (including redemarcation, 

reorganisation, staff changes and 

loss of key staff); 

• emphasis being laid on capital works to 

construct new facilities, but inadequate 

measures to maintain these once they are built; 

• overloading (most visibly the overloading of 

vehicles, causing damage to roads; but also in 

wastewater treatment works, and health and 

education facilities which are having to cope 

with numbers of people for which they were not 

designed); 

• inadequate maintenance budgets (either 

because the institution is in a distressed 

financial state and thus unable to fund 

infrastructure maintenance; or, even if the 

institution is not distressed, infrastructure 

maintenance not being prioritised in the 

planning and budgeting process); 

• new facilities often not designed to achieve low 

maintenance, and/or are poorly built; 

• inadequate maintenance budgets, because 

maintenance is not prioritised in planning and 

budgeting process; and 

• inadequate skills (especially technical skills) 

and experience to plan and implement 

appropriate maintenance programmes. 

The amount of infrastructure for which some of 

these institutions have in the last dozen years 

become responsible has increased enormously. 

However, maintenance budgets, and the numbers 

DBSA staff are expressing concern at the 

impact of inappropriate infrastructure 

operation and maintenance on the 

infrastructure loans provided by DBSA. It is 

feared that in some instances loan 

agreements will still be in place, i.e. the loan 

is not fully repaid, when the asset ceases to 

perform as it was originally intended. This 

will impact not only on the service quality 

delivered, but also on the consequential 

revenues that had been anticipated in the 

original financial plan, therefore impacting on 

the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. 

If local government budgets for maintenance 

are not significantly increased, "this situation 

may result in lower service level standards, or 

municipalities having to incur excessive costs 

to replace/upgrade infrastructure and 

equipment. … The importance of preventative 

maintenance of infrastructure cannot be overemphasised, 

as failure in this regard can 

result in municipalities incurring significant 

expenditure in future to replace assets not 

well maintained.” 

("Report on the analysis of municipal budgets for 

the 2003/2004 financial year." SALGA 2003:5-6) 

and skill of maintenance staff have not increased 

concomitantly (in some cases, the numbers of 

skilled staff have reduced). 

3.3 Key contrasts between Category A and 

Category B 

The main differences between Category A and B 

institutions as described above in 3.3.2 & 3.2.3 

are: 

• Although nearly all institutions have in recent 

years been given responsibility for significant 

amounts of newly constructed infrastructure, 

the Category B institutions have become 

responsible proportionately for much more 

than they had before; and 

11 


• Within the Category B institutions, the 

maintenance budgets and the numbers and skill 

of their staff, have not increased in step with the 

increase in responsibility for infrastructure. In 

some cases, the numbers of skilled staff have 

reduced, whereas, in the Category A 

institutions, budgets and staff are more closely 

keeping up with the increase in the amount of 


Other significant differences between Category A 

institutions and Category B institutions relate to: 

• political and senior administrative emphasis on 

maintenance; 

• balance between new construction and existing 

infrastructure and facilities; 

• design and construction quality (which affects 

the amount of future maintenance required); 

• age of infrastructure and maintenance history; 

• operation of infrastructure; 

• usage of infrastructure (e.g. overloading); 

• institutional stability or change; 

• overall financial viability; 

• external forces requiring that maintenance be 

attended to (e.g. safety requirements); 

• external assistance offered or imposed (e.g. 

funding and of skills); 

• procurement of external assistance; and 

• ringfencing of services. 

In summary, the Category A institutions maintain 

their infrastructure well or reasonably well. 

Budgets are adequate (even if barely so), skilled 

staff are in place, leadership is committed, and 

policies support sound infrastructure maintenance 

practices. Other institutions have lagged behind, 

but the risks of this are recognised, and 

maintenance needs are being addressed by a 

number of targeted programmes. 

Generally, the larger institutions are performing 

the best - for example DWAF, the larger water 

boards, ACSA, Telkom, Eskom, SANRAL, Transnet 

and most of the metropolitan municipalities. 

Within the Category B institutions, there is strong 

evidence that much infrastructure, of both pre- and 

post-1994 vintage, is not being properly 

maintained. Older infrastructure is often not being 

refurbished and renewed when it needs to be, and 

there is inadequate planned preventative 

maintenance of new infrastructure. 

It is important to identify which infrastructure and 

facilities sectors constitute the greatest problem in 

terms of issues such as: 

• severity of problem and how frequently it is 

experienced; 

• effects on human health and economic growth; 

• lack of effective countermeasures in the event 

of failure of the service; and 

• the risk generally to government's growth 

objectives. 

Wastewater treatment works are problematic, as 

are water treatment works, water and sewer 

reticulation, on-site sanitation, some provincial 

and municipal roads and some provincial health 

and education facilities. 

These sectors must be the main focus of efforts to 

assist the Category B institutions. If not, funds to 

address the cost of repairs and unplanned 

replacements (as opposed to planned, 

preventative measures) will ultimately have to be 

found, which would severely limit the programme 

for addressing backlogs and expanding service 

delivery. 

3.4 Conclusions 

It is evident that a holistic national infrastructure 

maintenance strategy is needed. Whereas 

Category A public sector institutions are on the 

path to sustained infrastructure service delivery 

through maintenance improvement, it does not 

seem that Category B institutions will (with a 

few exceptions) be able to improve their 

maintenance policies and practices without 

strong direction and assistance from national 

government. 

The next chapter, Chapter 4, describes the 

National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy, 

aimed at promoting sound maintenance of 

infrastructure and facilities across the whole of the 

public sector. While it will assist and set 

parameters for all public sector institutions in 

general, its primary target is the institutions in 

Category B. 


12

4. action plan 

Improved maintenance of infrastructure is a key 

element of the realisation of the objectives of 

ASGISA. By improving infrastructure asset 

management planning, budgeting and 

implementation, public infrastructure will be 

maintained in such a way as to enable sustainable 

service delivery, increased economic growth, and 

increased access to services and economic 

opportunities for the poor. 

In addition, maintenance is usually highly labourintensive, 

and there are opportunities for 

contributing to the scaling up of the Expanded 

Public Works Programme through increased 

maintenance of infrastructure. Futhermore, since 

there will be an ongoing need for maintenance, 

and since most maintenance activities are 

repetitive, expansion of the maintenance industry 

will provide increased opportunities for long-term 

employment. The four thrusts of the National 

I n f r a s t r u c t u r e M a i n t e n a n c e S t r a t e g y , 

implementation of which will lead to the 

achievement of this vision, comprise: 

i. Strengthening the regulatory framework 

governing planning and budgeting for 

infrastructure maintenance. 

ii. Assisting institutions with non-financial 

resources. 

iii. Developing the maintenance industry. 

iv. Strengthening monitoring, evaluation and 

reporting, and feeding this into a process of 

continuous improvement. 

i. Strengthening the regulatory framework 

governing planning and budgeting for 

infrastructure maintenance 

As noted in Chapter 3, planning and budgeting for 

maintenance varies greatly across the public 

sector. The most effective way to address the 

needs of those institutions that have not adopted 

sound infrastructure maintenance policies and 

practices is to strengthen the performance 

requirements within the regulatory framework and 

Treasury guidelines governing the management of 

immovable assets, the compilation of strategic 

plans and the annual budgetary process. This will 

result in improved motivations for additional 

funding for maintenance, a prerequisite for 

receiving increased funding. 

Some important work is already underway to 

address these issues. The Department of Public 

Works has tabled the Government-wide Immovable 

Asset Management Bill in Parliament. In addition, 

National Treasury is finalising Asset Management 

Guidelines. These two initiatives will provide a 

government-wide policy framework for the 

management of assets; including: 

• planning for new infrastructure (and 

considering alternatives such as non-asset 

solutions (eg mobile service centres) and 

maintaining existing assets better so that they 

can continue to be used rather than building 

new assets); 

• compiling and updating of asset registers, 

including the information required to be kept 

on asset registers (eg description of the asset, 

condition of the asset, maintenance history, 

value, utilisation, floor area of buildings, etc); 

The Department of Land Affairs is also 

coordinating a programme involving the other 

relevant national government departments, 

provincial governments and municipalities, to 

ensure that all state immovable assets are vested 

(with the Deeds Office) in the name of the correct 

government institution which owns them. This will 

ensure that there is clarity with regard to which 

government institution is responsible for the 

maintenance of each asset. 

In addition to these existing initiatives, a further 

initiative is required to ensure that public bodies 

increasingly link new capital investments to 

ongoing operational and maintenance budgets, 

and increasingly budget for maintenance of 

existing infrastructure over time. It is also 

important that funding of infrastructure be 

changed to a life-cycle funding approach rather 

than a funding approach which focuses on the 

initial construction costs only. The focus of 

improved planning should be for institutions to 

identify the strategic infrastructure that they are 

responsible for, i.e. that which is “mission critical” 

to their service delivery or which if it fails will have 

disastrous results, and to ensure that this strategic 

infrastructure is adequately maintained. 

Action 1: Review, strengthen and harmonise 

the strategic planning regulatory framework, so 

that it includes requirements for planning and 

13 


udgeting for maintenance especially of 

infrastructure of a strategic nature. 

Leadership: National Treasury, with dplg and 

other national infrastructure departments. 

Action 2: Create links between the capital 

budget, the operating budget, and the 

infrastructure asset management plan of each 

institution, to ensure that financial provision for 

maintenance is specifically linked to currently 

owned strategic infrastructure and to decisions 

on investment in new capital infrastructure. 

Create mechanisms to monitor this, and to 

apply corrective action where necessary. Such 

mechanisms will include: 

- Requiring management of Departments to 

submit budgets which reflect sufficient 

provision for maintenance (particularly for 

strategic infrastructure to be maintained) 

Treasuries should refer budget submissions 

which do not make provision for 

maintenance back to departments to make 

such provision; 

- checking that the financial statements of 

expenditure, submitted after the end of the 

financial year, do not without good 

motivation diverge from the approved 

budgets for maintenance. 

Leadership: National Treasury, with treasuries 

of all spheres. 

Action 3: Treasuries (national and provincial) to 

plan for increasing global allocations for 

maintenance over time (assuming that 

adequate motivations for increased 

maintenance funding are received from 

departments), until such time as maintenance 

funding approaches an optimal level. 

Leadership: National Treasury, with treasuries 

of all spheres. 

In terms of the Government-wide Immovable Asset 

Management Bill (GIAMA), it will become obligatory 

for public sector institutions to draw up sound 

multi-year infrastructure asset management plans. 

Action 4: Gazette regulations in terms of 

GIAMA, requiring adequate planning for 

maintenance (including guidelines for the 

organisational structures and skilled staff 

required to manage the planning and 

implementation of maintenance programmes). 

Leadership: DPW, in consultation with National 

Treasury and dplg. 

Many public sector institutions do not have the 

resources to address all maintenance issues and 

also deal at the same time with backlogs of new 

infrastructure provision. They therefore need to 

identify strategic infrastructure for prioritised 

maintenance funding - i.e. infrastructure which 

underpins the core economic and social 

development of the country, and the failure of 

which due to a lack of maintenance could have 

serious economic, social, health, safety or security 

consequences. Principally, these are wastewater 

treatment works, water treatment works, bulk 

water pipelines, health facilities and critical 

transportation infrastructure. From the situation 

review (Chapter 3), it is evident that some of this 

strategic infrastructure is not being maintained 

properly - many wastewater treatment works and 

health facilities, for example. Until such time as 

maintenance budgets are adequate to meet all the 

maintenance needs, strategic infrastructure must 

receive priority in the allocation of maintenance 

budgets. 

The corollary of this is that public sector 

institutions should be encouraged to identify 

infrastructure that is least utilised or in some or 

other way can be categorised as of least 

importance. This infrastructure can consciously be 

d r o p p e d f r o m l o n g - t e r m m a i n t e n a n c e 

programmes, so that funding can be released for 

the maintenance of other, more important, 


Action 5: Incorporate in the regulatory 

framework described above requirements for 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

identifying key strategic infrastructure 

(for example water and wastewater 

treatment works, key arterial roads, etc.), 

specifically budgeting for the adequate 

m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h i s s t r a t e g i c 

infrastructure, and 

reporting performance. 

Leadership: National Treasury with dplg, and 

national infrastructure departments. 

One of the key challenges in increasing funding for 


14

maintenance is the financial viability of some 

institutions. No programme to improve 

infrastructure maintenance will succeed in some 

institutions if their financial viability is not 

improved. (Several initiatives aimed at improving 

the finances of targeted municipalities are already 

underway or planned). 

One of the challenges in improving the condition of 

public buildings lies in finding an appropriate 

balance between the need to maintain our national 

heritage embodied in public buildings and the 

need to comply with government policies and 

regulations, eg accessibility for disabled people. 

Action 6: Carry out an audit of heritage sites in 

order to identify work to make them compliant 

with government policies and regulations, and 

engage with the South African Heritage 

Resources Agency (SAHRA) in this regard. 

Leadership: DPW, supported by Department of 

Arts and Culture. 

ii. Assisting institutions with non-financial 

resources 

Improving human resources capacity and 

providing better practice guidelines are measures 

that will assist institutions to improve 

maintenance. Supportive interventions that will be 

introduced include: 

• developing norms and standards for 

m a i n t e n a n c e o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f 

infrastructure; and 

• putting in place appropriate capacity-building, 

mentoring and direct support programmes. 

These supportive interventions will be done in line 

with the Policy Framework for the Governance and 

Administration of Public Sector Institutions and the 

Single Public Service initiative, which are being 

coordinated by the DPSA. 

Maintenance norms and standards will be 

developed for the various sectors (e.g. roads, 

water, sanitation, etc.) and good practice 

guidelines for planning, designing and 

implementing maintenance programmes will be 

produced, including guidelines on the skills 

required to plan and manage maintenance 

Mbeki …. spoke candidly yesterday 

about the skills crisis that had in some 

instances led to a breakdown of service 

delivery. Mbeki admitted that 

South Africa did not have enough 

of the specialists needed to implement 

government's programme of action. 

(Business Day 2005) 

programmes, and guidelines on different 

implementation models, including private sector 

participation in maintenance programmes. Based 

on the maintenance standards, budgeting norms 

will be developed to facilitate accurate long-term 

maintenance budget forecasting, taking into 

account the type, age and condition of 


These norms and standards will include 

maintenance budgeting guidelines, for example, 

the percentage of infrastructure asset value that 

should annually be allocated to the maintenance 

budgets. The norms will differentiate not just 

between types of infrastructure, but also take into 

account factors such as size and extent, 

appropriate materials for various local conditions, 

age, usage, standard of construction, operator 

skills levels, current level of maintenance, residual 

value, etc. 

The norms will also take account of reliability, 

which will be determined by what constitutes 

"failure", what the consequences of failure are, and 

mitigation plans. For example, if the "down time" 

of the asset must not exceed, say, 1% of the time, 

the maintenance norms need to be a lot more 

stringent than if the down time can be, say, 10%. 

Action 7: Develop and promote guidelines, 

norms and standards for the maintenance of 

infrastructure - covering financial, technical and 

skills aspects. Extend the Construction Industry 

Development Board (cidb) "Toolkit for 

Infrastructure Delivery Management" so that it 

will support public sector officials to improve 

the delivery and maintenance of infrastructure. 

Leadership: cidb, with the sector departments 

and National Treasury. 

With regard to human resource capacity, one of the 

15 


JIPSA initiatives which is under way through the 

Construction Industry Development Board is an 

audit of existing technical skills in the construction 

(and maintenance) industry, together with 

projections of the skills requirements over the next 

fifteen years. This initiative is currently developing 

recommendations for actions to address the 

projected skills shortages. A similar initiative is 

required to identify the non-technical skills 

requirements related to improving the 

maintenance of infrastructure (eg knowledge of 

the importance of maintenance and the 

consequences of neglecting maintenance; skills in 

budgeting for maintenance, life-cycle planning and 

budgeting, and supply chain management). 

Action 8: Carry out a study of the non-technical 

human resource capacity requirements for 

improving infrastructure maintenance, 

including identifying actions to address the 

identified skills shortages. 

Leadership: cidb, in consultation with relevant 

departments. 

Action 9: Identify the Category B institutions, 

and build targeted capacity within them, 

t hrough t he I nfrastructure D e l i very 

Improvement Programme (IDIP), Project 

Consolidate and other capacity-building 

programmes. In particular, provide direct 

support to assist them (at the very least) to 

prepare asset management plans including 

maintenance plans. 

Leadership: cidb, with sector departments e.g. 

DWAF and dplg. 

iii. Developing the maintenance industry 

Given the skills shortages and equity imbalances in 

the infrastructure maintenance and construction 

industry, there is a need for the government to play 

a role in developing the maintenance industry 

particularly with regard to skills development, 

SMME development, and the promotion of Broad- 

Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) in the 

maintenance industry. 

Action 10: Build the maintenance sector within 

the construction industry, recognising its 

importance with various interventions 

including: 

• Developing models, guidelines and 

procedures for procurement of maintenance 

services, particularly ongoing long-term 

maintenance contracts which will promote 

SMME development, BBBEE, involvement of 

women, and local employment coupled with 

appropriate enterprise development; and 

• Building capacity in the industry, through 

means such as learnerships, mentorships 

and other forms of skills and contractor 

development programmes. The EPWP will 

play an important role in this regard. 

Leadership: cidb with Construction SETA and 

government infrastructure institutions within 

all three spheres. 

iv. Strengthening monitoring, evaluation and 

reporting, and feeding this into a process of 

continuous improvement 

Monitoring and evaluation processes must be 

strengthened and implemented - with mechanisms 

for the feedback to result in the necessary 

improvements. This will enable performance 

change to be measured, but, as important, it will 

draw the attention of the institutions concerned to 

non-performance. The annual reporting 

requirements and the forthcoming GIAMA 

regulations provide the framework for this to take 

place. 

Action 11: Strengthen and implement 

monitoring and evaluation processes. 

Leadership: National Treasury with DPW. 


16

5. conclusions 

There are significant differences from one institution to 

another in capacity, resources and the size of the 

maintenance problem, and in their maintenance policies 

and practice. At the one end of the range, the sector 

review has revealed, there are some public sector 

institutions that have in place, and more-or-less 

adequately fund, good infrastructure maintenance 

policies and practice. At the other end of the range, 

others are doing very little in the way of maintenance, 

and service delivery is threatened and in some cases has 

already failed. 

The National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy will 

promote sound maintenance of infrastructure and 

facilities across the whole of the public sector, and set 

parameters for all public sector institutions to perform 

against. These measures include strengthening the 

maintenance regulatory and governance framework, 

requiring infrastructure asset management planning and 

linking this to budgets, assisting institutions to develop 

the required maintenance management capacity, 

developing the maintenance industry, and monitoring 

progress and feeding this into a process of continuous 

improvement. 

Many of the Category B institutions are not able to 

improve their maintenance practice without some level 

of the assistance and regulation that implementation of 

the Strategy will provide. Although the Category A 

institutions are not the target of the Strategy, it is likely 

that the infrastructure maintenance of many of them will 

also benefit from some of these measures 

This Strategy gives substance to present legislation, e.g. 

PFMA, MFMA and the Municipal Services Act, which 

places an obligation on accounting officers "for the 

management of the assets of the entity, including the 

safeguarding and maintenance of those assets" (MFMA 

96 (1) (a) - a similar requirement in PFMA is 38 (1) (d)). 

Implementation of this Strategy and the key actions 

identified will, in time, result in an improvement in the 

state of public infrastructure. 

17 


annexures 

Annexure A: Maintenance reviews, by sector 

This annexure provides the detail that is 

summarised in Chapter 3. 

The sectors are listed in the following order: 

• provincial roads 

• health and education facilities in ownership of 

provincial government 

• public buildings in ownership of national 

government 

• municipalities 

• water boards 

• water resources infrastructure in ownership of 

national government 

• ACSA 

• Transnet and its affiliates (principally Spoornet, 

National Ports Authority and SA Port 

Operations) 

• Telkom 

Each of these is described in the sequence: 

• the type of infrastructure in the care of this 

institution or group of institutions; 

• overview of the infrastructure and service 

delivery; 

• current replacement cost, if an estimate is 

available; 

• overview of state of infrastructure and state of 

maintenance; 

• what the causes of this might be; 

• current initiatives to enhance maintenance 

(both what is being promised, and what is being 

done); and 

• a short summary. 

All sums for "maintenance" provisions stated in 

this Annexure are for planned and unplanned 

maintenance, repair, refurbishment and renewal - 

but not for the eventual disposal and replacement 

of the infrastructure assets. 

All statistics represent work-in-progress and are 

therefore preliminary figures only. 

Annexure B contains generic remarks by type of 

infrastructure: what kinds of things go wrong if 

maintenance is substandard, and what is needed 

(descriptive, not quantity) in respect of 

maintenance. 

a. Provincial roads 

Overview of provincial roads departments' 

infrastructure and service delivery 

The roads departments of provincial governments 

are responsible for government-owned roads in 

their provinces that are not the responsibility of 

SANRAL at the one end of the scale or 

municipalities at the other end of the scale. Design 

and construction standard ranges from freeways 

through to unpaved roads (in 2002, 63 000 km of 

surfaced roads and 301 000 km of gravel and 

access roads ("Road infrastructure strategic 

framework for South Africa", DoT, 2002)). In 

respect of those sections of "proclaimed main 

roads" that traverse built-up areas, the provincial 

roads department could be funding or partially 

funding municipalities to undertake the 

maintenance, or they could be doing it themselves. 

A current replacement cost of all of the road 

infrastructure in the ownership of provincial 

governments has not been thoroughly calculated, 

but it is estimated to be in the order of R200 billion. 

State of infrastructure and state of maintenance 

DoT noted that all provincial roads authorities 

used to do annual "visual condition index" studies, 

but during the 10 years prior to 2002 "more than 

half" of them curbed or stopped doing the surveys. 

This is a "disturbing factor" - "some provinces have 

very little quality information on which to base 

managerial performance evaluation and needidentification 

processes. It seems that this could 

be one of the primary causes for the poor condition 

of the provincial road networks in general." 

More recent information, obtained directly from 

provinces, confirms that the generally downward 

trend in quality information and in the state of 

roads infrastructure is continuing. There are 

however some notable exceptions. More than one 

province still has quality information, and is able to 

report that its current budget levels are able to 

"maintain the network in its current condition", 

although even they are not receiving the budget 

that they need to significantly reduce maintenance 

backlogs. 

Study of the visual condition information available 

shows that almost all if not all provinces suffered a 

steady slide in road condition until the end of the 


18

1990s, since which time some have managed to 

hold (even if tenuously) or even slightly improve 

the condition of the paved road network. However 

what is clear is that, given budget shortages, 

conscious decisions have been taken to not 

maintain selected roads, or to maintain them 

minimally. Hence the available budget has 

preferentially been given to the strategically more 

significant roads, while the proportions of the 

lower order of roads in "poor" or "very poor" 

condition have climbed. 

Many provincial roads departments are not 

conforming to the requirements of the PFMA and 

other legislation that they should ensure that 

adequate provision is made for the long-term 

maintenance of infrastructure assets. 

Clearly, inadequate budgets rather than 

inadequate skills and experience are at present the 

main underlying cause of the deterioration. 

Current initiatives to enhance maintenance 

It is not known if there are current initiatives to 

enhance maintenance other than those initiatives 

which individual provincial roads departments are 

able to plan and implement for themselves. 

However, SANRAL has been taking selected 

strategic roads over from some of the provinces, 

thereby enabling them to more adequately budget 

for their now reduced networks. "In most cases, the 

roads are being reclassified ostensibly because 

provinces do not have the funds to maintain them." 

("Financial and Fiscal Commission: Annual 

Submission for the Division of Revenue 2006/07." 

Financial and Fiscal Commission, 2005.) 

Summary 

In summary, the key factor pertinent to the state of 

provincial roads infrastructure is the size of the 

maintenance budget. In some provinces, this is 

sufficient to prevent further deterioration of the 

more strategic roads, or even improve them, but in 

others it is not. Funding for the lower order of 

roads, and the state of these roads, is in general 

decline. Overall, the maintenance backlog is 

increasing. 

b. Health and education facilities in ownership 

of provincial governments 

Overview of provincial facilities and service 

delivery 

Provincial governments are responsible for health 

and education facilities (inclusive of buildings and 

infrastructure). They are also, among other duties, 

responsible for provincial roads (discussed in a 

separate section of Annexure A) and other 

buildings and infrastructure that are not discussed 

here (for example housing for selected provincial 

officials, resorts, and recreation facilities). 

The arrangements for budgeting for and 

implementation of maintenance vary from 

province to province. In some cases, maintenance 

budgets are allocated to the Departments of Health 

and Education, and in other cases the maintenance 

budgets are allocated to the Department of Public 

Works. Together with National Treasury, the 

Department of Public Works and its provincial 

counterparts are currently working on proposals to 

establish uniform institutional and budgeting 

arrangements for health and education facilities. 

This is being complemented by the Infrastructure 

Delivery Improvement Programme, which is aimed 

at improving the planning and implementation of 

education and health infrastructure. 

The CSIR has estimated that the current 

replacement cost of all provincially-owned health 

and education facilities is R275 billion. 

International norms suggest that on average at 

least 4% of the replacement cost should be spent 

per annum on maintenance - provided that the 

facilities are in good condition. This level of 

expenditure would include provision for planned 

maintenance (including legislated maintenance, 

such as on lifts or fire equipment) and unplanned 

work (such as repairs). However provincial 

governments generally budget for much less than 

this. 

Where facilities are not in good condition, larger 

percentages than the 4% minimum need to be 

spent - for example where, due to lack of 

preventative maintenance in the past, 

rehabilitation is now required. Because of 

19 


insufficient budgets and for other reasons given 

below, the maintenance backlog of some 

provincial departments is escalating. 


With a few exceptions, provincial governments 

have not done formal broad-based audits of the 

state (i.e. condition) of their health and education 

facilities. Particularly lacking are overviews of 

trends in the state and performance, and 

maintenance, of provincial health and education 

facilities. 

Investigations undertaken by the CSIR on behalf of 

provincial governments indicate that a lack of 

maintenance is in many instances hampering 

health and education service delivery. For 

example, the condition of much hospital 

mechanical and electrical equipment has 

deteriorated, which is leading to unacceptably high 

rates of equipment failure in service. An especially 

stark consequence of maintenance not being 

addressed is a shortening of the lives of the 

facilities, and hence the need for them to be 

replaced sooner. 

The four principal causes of the ongoing failure of 

some provincial government departments to catch 

up on maintenance backlogs and to run a 

preventative maintenance programme are: 

• Emphasis being laid on capital works to 

construct new facilities, but inadequate 

measures to maintain these once they are built; 

• new facilities often not designed for low 

maintenance, and also sometimes poorly built; 

• inadequate maintenance budgets, because 

maintenance is not prioritised in the planning 

and budgeting process; and 




The shortage of skills in the provincial government 

departments responsible for commissioning and 

controlling facilities is in many instances 

manifesting in delays in planning and initiating 

work, in poor selection of consultants and 

contractors, and in poor supervision of work. In 

some provinces, difficulties also arise between the 

institutions responsible for maintenance (often the 

provincial Departments of Works) and the client 

institutions (for example Departments of Health 

and Education). 


Thanks to good programme planning and targeted 

investment, facilities in some provinces have 

improved over the last 10 years (for example 

KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo), while there is strong 

evidence to suggest that their condition is sliding 

in others. 

The National Department of Education is driving 

the compilation of a nation-wide schools "register 

of needs". While this will contain other information 

not directly related to maintenance needs, it will 

include also asset and asset condition registers, 

and will thus be very useful for assessing and 

prioritising education facilities maintenance 

needs. Completion of this register is scheduled for 

before the end of the 2006/2007 financial year. 

National guidelines on facilities management, that 

provincial governments should follow, are also 

needed. 

A nation-wide survey of health facilities needs, 

much less comprehensive than the schools 

register of needs will be when it is completed, was 

undertaken about 10 years ago, and a new survey 

is long overdue. 

National Treasury recently established the 

"Hospital Revitalisation Fund", a capital grant 

programme for the upgrading of hospitals and the 

building of new ones. The revitalisation process 

does require provinces to include budget provision 

for hospital facilities maintenance, but the level 

that has been set is too low. Nevertheless it has 

succeeded in improving much hospital 

infrastructure where other programmes have 

failed - and the reasons for its success are 

principally that it is a dedicated fund and that it is 

monitored by National Treasury and the national 

Department of Health. 


20

Summary 

In summary, the maintenance policies and 

practices of the different departments, and the 

consequent state of their facilities, cover a wide 

range. Budgets range from department to 

department - from adequate, to very inadequate, 

with the average condition of facilities 

deteriorating, and the maintenance backlog 

increasing. 

c. Public buildings in ownership of national 

government 

Overview of national government public 

buildings and service delivery 

The large national departments which deliver 

services directly to the public are responsible for 

the majority of the buildings owned by the national 

government (i.e. police stations, prisons, courts 

and military facilities). These, together with 

national government-owned office accommodation, 

constitute the portfolio of public 

buildings in the ownership of national 

government. Some office accommodation is also 

leased. However government is usually 

responsible for maintenance of the owned 

portfolio only. 


With a few partial exceptions, the Department of 

Public Works has not yet done formal broad-based 

audits of the state (i.e. condition) of all of the 

buildings. Particularly lacking are overviews of 

trends in the state and performance of the 

buildings. 

Some of the leased accommodation is in a poor 

condition, and the Department of Public Works 

needs to improve the management of its leases in 

order to address this. The improvements required 

include taking corrective actions against landlords 

not supplying adequate service levels. Some of the 

owned office accommodation is also in a poor 

condition. This should be addressed through 

improved maintenance planning and the allocation 

of increased budgets for maintenance on the basis 

of maintenance plans. 

The principal cause of the ongoing failure to catch 

up on maintenance backlogs and to run a 

preventative maintenance programme is a lack of 

adequate funding for maintenance. 


The 2005 Government Programme of Action 

required DPW and DPSA to develop a framework to 

improve the physical work environment for 

government. Substantial progress has been made 

on a number of projects which will collectively form 

the framework. These include the development of 

new norms for all forms of accommodation, 

GIAMA, and a study of the consolidated capital, 

maintenance and leasing backlogs. 

A number of departments have commissioned 

surveys to enhance information regarding fixed 

assets - for example Home Affairs and SAPS. 

The budgets for the maintenance of all national 

government-owned buildings have recently been 

devolved from the national Department of Public 

Works to the various departments. Departments 

are required to use their devolved budgets to pay 

user charges to DPW, based on rental amounts per 

square metre for different types of building. User 

charges are currently of the order of one quarter of 

market-related rentals. However, in consultation 

with National Treasury, DPW will gradually increase 

the rental charges over the next ten years, until the 

rentals are approximately half of market-related 

rentals (approximately equivalent to marketrelated 

rentals less their mark-up for return on 

capital). This will enable expenditure on 

maintenance to rise substantially, and the 

condition of the buildings is expected to improve 

as a consequence. 

In addition, DPW is engaging in a three-year turnaround 

service delivery improvement programme, 

with the aim of improving the efficiency, 

effectiveness, and responsiveness of its 

operations, including maintenance. Management 

and supervision of maintenance activities, 

including maintenance of the prestige portfolio, is 

being strengthened. 

21 


Summary 

The main cause of inadequate maintenance of 

national government buildings has been 

inadequate budgeting for maintenance. Increasing 

the user charges will enable maintenance budgets 

to increase, resulting in improvement to the 

condition of the buildings. 

d. Municipalities 

Overview of municipal infrastructure and 

service delivery 

Municipalities are typically responsible for water 

services (including sanitation), roads and 

stormwater, solid waste collection and disposal, 

and, in many but not all cases, the distribution of 

electricity. They are also responsible for an array of 

public facilities and amenities, including sports 

fields, community halls and libraries. They may 

also be responsible for low-income housing. 


replacement cost of all municipal engineering 

infrastructure and buildings (excluding housing) is 

at least R300 billion. Given the poor state of much 

of this, and the repair and refurbishment 

consequently required in addition to planned 

maintenance, international norms suggest that 

approximately 4% of the replacement value should 

on average be spent per annum on maintenance 

(excluding for disposal and replacement) - 

amounting to about R12 billion per annum. 

However, municipalities are on average budgeting 

for less than half of this. 


There are no formal broad-based audits of the 

state of municipal infrastructure. Particularly 

lacking is any overview of trends in the state and 

performance of local government infrastructure 

and its maintenance. However research 

undertaken by the cidb and CSIR reveals serious 

shortfalls (and in places gross shortfalls) in many 

municipalities' maintenance policies and practice. 

The sustained provision of services is in many 

cases under threat. Specifically, many 

municipalities are not conforming to the 

requirements of the MFMA, Municipal Systems Act 

and other legislation that they should ensure that 

adequate provision is made for the long-term 

maintenance of infrastructure assets. 

While many of the aspects of infrastructure 

maintenance are implemented to a high standard 

in a small number of municipalities, there are great 

shortfalls in maintenance policies and practice in 

many other municipalities. The sustained 

provision of services by a significant proportion of 

the municipal infrastructure is under threat. 

Generally, the municipalities in or close to the 

larger urban centres are coping better, while 

municipalities that are mostly rural in nature are 

struggling the most - but there are significant 

exceptions. 

Of concern at municipal level is the state of 

wastewater treatment, water treatment, water and 

sewer reticulation, on-site sanitation, electricity 

reticulation, and arterial roads -- these are the 

fundamental building blocks for economic growth 

and healthy communities. Of greatest concern is 

the state of wastewater treatment. 

The two principal causes of the ongoing failure of 

many municipalities to recover maintenance 

backlogs, run a preventative maintenance 

programme and deliver a reliable, sustainable 

service are: 

• inadequate revenue and budgets (either 

because these municipalities are in a distressed 

financial state and thus unable to fund 

infrastructure maintenance; or, even if they are 

not distressed, infrastructure maintenance is 

not prioritised in the planning and budgeting 

process); and 




Unpacking the first of these causes, the following 

are the greatest contributors to the inadequacy of 

revenue and budgets: 

• the increasing amount of infrastructure (new 

areas served, improved levels of service, and 

upgrading of existing service levels) owned by 


22

municipalities (each year, more and more to 

operate - and to maintain); 

• the weak financial state of many municipalities; 

and, in a few cases, 

• the capping of the operating budget. 

The unintended consequence of constructing 

more new infrastructure without addressing 

maintenance needs is a further widening of the 

backlogs in infrastructure maintenance. 

Generally, the poorest municipalities have, 

proportionate to their ability to look after it, 

acquired the most new infrastructure. They have 

the least resources to adequately maintain both 

this new and existing infrastructure, and need 

concerted help. 


The last couple of years have seen a rising number 

of initiatives aimed at increasing the maintenance 

of municipal infrastructure. Some of these are 

localised - that is, are within a municipality or 

within a department of a municipality. 

Other initiatives cover wider areas. Among these 

can be mentioned the current formulation process 

by DWAF of a national water services infrastructure 

asset management strategy, recent EU-sponsored 

pilot studies of infrastructure management needs, 

the condition survey of municipal infrastructure in 

the Western Cape (currently in pilot stage), and the 

recently published South African version of the 

"International Infrastructure Management Manual" 

(based on an Australasian original). Dplg and 

National Treasury are also both working on 

initiatives. 

Summary 

In summary, the maintenance policies and practice 

of the different municipalities, and the consequent 

state of that infrastructure, cover a wide range. On 

average, municipalities are spending less than half 

of what they should be spending on maintenance. 

Maintenance backlogs are increasing rapidly, and 

the sustained provision of municipal services in 

some areas is under threat. 

e. Water boards 

Overview of water board infrastructure and 

service delivery 

Water boards are responsible for bulk water 

services for their regions, including the abstraction 

of water (from rivers, dams or groundwater), its 

treatment and its conveyance in bulk. 

Municipalities are then usually responsible for its 

further storage and its distribution, and are also 

usually responsible for all aspects of sanitation and 

wastewater. In some cases, however, water boards 

are involved in some of these municipal-type 

activities, sometimes under contract to the 

municipality. In other cases, water boards are 

responsible for or in some way supportive of 

community water supply and sanitation in rural 

areas. 


replacement cost of all water board engineering 

infrastructure and buildings is of the order of R60 

billion. Rand Water and Umgeni Water are 

responsible for 80% of the water supplied by the 

total of 15 water boards. All the water boards have 

maintenance backlogs, but those reported by the 

larger water boards suggest (and this is confirmed 

by interviews undertaken by CSIR) that their 

infrastructure has over the years been reasonably 

well maintained. Furthermore, these larger water 

boards are fortunate to be able each year to budget 

amounts for maintenance that are usually not far 

short of need. Some of the smaller of the water 

boards, however have accumulated large 

maintenance backlogs, and are falling further 

behind each year. 


There are no formal broad-based audits of the 

state of water board infrastructure, and no 

overviews of trends in the state and performance 

of this infrastructure. 

The larger water boards, and some of the smaller 

ones, have high standards in respect of many of 

the aspects of infrastructure maintenance. Some 

water boards, however, do not, and their sustained 

provision of the service is under threat. 

23 


That some water boards budget adequately for 

maintenance, and do spend that funding 

appropriately, is a reflection of the following: 

• strong revenue streams; and 

• adequate skills (especially technical skills) and 

experience. 

Unpacking the first of these causes, the following 

appear to be the greatest contributors to the 

adequacy of revenue and budgets: 

• being willing to raise tariffs to cover actual 

costs, and being successful in raising these 

tariffs (presumably at least partly because they 

are one removed from the end users of water); 

and 

• strong credit control. 

The following are some of the benefits of adequate 

skills and funding: 

• being adequately resourced, these water 

boards are able to hire and retain competent 

staff, and, if they outsource, they are able to 

competently manage their contractors and get 

better value for money; 

• skills and experience in improving income and 

reducing cost; including strong credit control; 

• skills and experience to plan and implement 

appropriate maintenance programmes; and 

• being conscientious about their statutory 

responsibilities, for example relating to 

pressure vessels and water treatment works, 

and the need to maintain this infrastructure. 


Water boards are being included in the current 

formulation process by DWAF of a national water 

services infrastructure asset management 

strategy. 

Summary 

In summary, the larger water boards are managing 

to hold maintenance backlogs at a low level. Some 

of the smaller water boards do, however, face 

significant and increasing maintenance backlogs. 

f. Water resources infrastructure in ownership 

of national government 

Overview of DWAF water resources and bulk 

supply infrastructure and service delivery 

DWAF is responsible for the management of the 

nation's water resources and the provision of raw 

water in bulk through water resource 

infrastructure to various institutions and direct 

consumers. The DWAF water resources and bulk 

supply infrastructure comprises dams, weirs, 

canals, pumpstations, pipelines, siphons and 

tunnels. 


DWAF has reasonably up-to-date records of the 

location and capacity of assets, and of their 

maintenance history. However records of 

condition vary - DWAF has chosen to focus its 

infrastructure asset management attention on the 

most strategic elements of infrastructure. 

In particular, DWAF has in recent years focused on 

the management of its dams. The National Water 

Act (Chapter 12) makes DWAF responsible for 

ensuring that measures are taken to improve the 

safety of its dams. However, DWAF is currently 

unable to comply, because it has not had sufficient 

funds to adequately address the safety of dams. 

Many of the dams have reached a state where 

further postponement of necessary maintenance 

and refurbishment will result in serious cost 

escalations as their conditions deteriorate. This is 

further compounded by the fact that DWAF 

inherited a large number of ex-homeland dams 

which were not operated and maintained properly, 

and which continue to require urgent attention. 

One hundred and fifty of DWAF's 350 dams have 

"significant dam safety shortcomings". Priority 

rankings have been allocated, and the remediation 

(i.e. refurbishment) programme will be starting 

during the current financial year. 

DWAF indicates in respect of the rest of its 

infrastructure, i.e. other than of dams, that it will 

have to spend "significant amounts to bring it up to 

an acceptable standard". In particular, 


24

infrastructure built in the 1960s and 1970s is 

needing major refurbishment, or might even have 

to be replaced. For example, a canal's design 

lifetime takes into account that major 

(refurbishment) work will be required after 25 to 

30 years. Given the size of the elements of 

infrastructure that DWAF owns, failure of any 

element would have significant impact. Specific 

examples currently of concern to DWAF include a 

canal and pump station to Sasol at Secunda, a canal 

and siphon to a major agricultural scheme in the 

Free State, and a pipeline to one of the 

metropolitan municipalities. In all cases, regular 

maintenance has been undertaken, but certain 

portions of the infrastructure have reached the end 

of their useful life and require urgent 

rehabilitation. 


inadequate skills and experience are the 

underlying cause of the deterioration. 


DWAF is doing what it can to address its 

maintenance needs. It has in some instances 

sought partners who have a strong interest in 

ensuring the reliability of water supply to 

themselves, and have the resources to assist 

significantly. A good example is the instance 

mentioned above of the supply to Secunda - the 

cost of the pump station refurbishment or 

replacement will be borne by Sasol, with DWAF 

retaining the responsibility for the canal 

refurbishment. 

Summary 

In summary, the key determinant of the state of 

DWAF water resources and bulk supply 

infrastructure is the size of the maintenance 

budget. DWAF has identified its most strategic 

infrastructure, and is prioritising the maintenance 

needs of that infrastructure, while doing what it 

can to address the needs of the remainder. 

g. ACSA 

Overview of ACSA's infrastructure and service 

delivery. 

Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) owns and 

operates South Africa's 9 principal airports, 

including the three major international airports at 

Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban. It also has 

a 35-year concession to operate the airport at 

Pilanesberg. 

The company, created in 1993 by an Act of 

Parliament, commenced operation in 1995. ACSA 

was one of the first SOEs to be commercialised. It 

is owned by the Department of Transport (73%), 

the Public Investment Corporation (20%), 

empowerment investors and staff share trusts. The 

company is profitable. 

The company has invested R 3.6 billion in capital 

infrastructure over the last five years, and has 

programmed to invest an additional R 15 billion in 

the next five-year period. 

ACSA is at each airport responsible for the property 

as a whole, and in particular for the runways, 

terminals and some of the hangars and technical 

areas (most hangars and technical areas are owned 

by the airlines). ACSA is not responsible for 

navigational aids and air traffic control, which are 

run by Air Traffic Navigation Services (ATNS). 

The current (2006) replacement cost of ACSA 

infrastructure is estimated to exceed R 9.5 billion. 


ACSA's infrastructure management policy is (and 

has been since the formation of the company) 

driven by the philosophy that the most economical 

way to retain the value of the infrastructure is to 

maintain regularly, and to optimise replacement 

periods. Over and above that, specific elements of 

infrastructure, being those elements most closely 

associated with aircraft and passenger safety, 

receive the highest priority. 

Thus instrument landing systems, runway 

approach lights and runway ground lighting enjoy 

the highest priority, and are maintained in order to 

meet the statutory safety and reliability assurance 

requirements of the International Civil Aviation 

Organisation. The next highest priority items 

include security, emergency lighting within 

25 


terminals, baggage handling and lifts and air 

bridges. Statutory requirements rule here also - in 

particular those of the (South African) Civil Aviation 

Authority, the (USA) Federal Aviation Authority 

with respect to security, and those of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act. 

ACSA also pays close attention to the condition of 

runways and aprons - the company runs a 

sophisticated pavement management system, 

kept up-to-date by weekly visual inspections, 

recording of all work done, and annual 

assessments of Remaining Useful Life. 

Infrastructure asset management is governed by 

the "ACSA Maintenance Policy Document", which 

sets out the life-cycle replacement policy and 

programmes, and policy and programmes for the 

review of the status (i.e. wear and tear, and 

obsolescence) of assets. 

All the airports have standby generators, of 

sufficient capacity to meet the power needs of 

runway ground lighting, air bridges, baggage 

handling, security, and emergency lighting within 

terminals, should the external power source (e.g. 

Eskom) fail. (But not to meet the needs of, for 

example, escalators and air-conditioning.) 

Budgets for infrastructure management are 

reported to be very close to the optimum. There is 

no maintenance backlog to speak of. 

ACSA has a more or less adequate technical staff 

resource at all levels, more than competent 

enough to manage its infrastructure. 


Improvement of current procedures is constantly 

sought. For example, trials are currently underway 

of round-the-clock electronic condition monitoring 

systems for component parts of the baggage 

handling system and of pumping equipment. Such 

systems will enable earlier identification of 

components about to fail (and therefore their 

timeous replacement, leading to greater reliability 

of operation of the infrastructure). 

Summary 


ACSA's infrastructure has been its strong financial 

state, and in particular its ability over the years to 

budget adequately for maintenance and 

replacement. Statutory requirements for safety 

and reliability, and the company's own 

maintenance policy and strong maintenance ethic 

have also been instrumental. 

h. Transnet 

Overview of Transnet's infrastructure and service 

delivery 

The core elements of the business of Transnet 

(since 1989 a SOE, and wholly owned by the 

Department of Transport) are rail, ports and 

pipelines. While it has been agreed that the 

operational function of each of these will be 

separated from the infrastructure function, this 

has only been implemented in respect of ports. 

Infrastructure and service delivery in respect of the 

following three entities is described in this section 

of Annexure A: 

• Spoornet (long-distance rail services); 

• National Ports Authority (NPA); and 

• SA Port Operations (SAPO). 

The NPA is responsible for the seven commercial 

ports, and for their infrastructure, including the 

harbours and quaysides themselves, harbour 

buildings, tug and pilot services, dredging and 

aids to navigation. SAPO is responsible for 

equipment such as straddle carriers, cranes and 

conveyor belts, and terminals (such as grain 

elevators) and their equipment. 


The financial state of Transnet has been highly 

material to the state of its infrastructure. Transnet 

has been posting substantial losses ever since it 

”inherited massive accumulated losses from South 

African Transport Services at the time of its 

inception in 1990" ("The DBSA Infrastructure 

Barometer 2006", page 72). The recent turnaround 


26

strategy, involving amongst other measures 

restructuring the balance sheet, disposing of noncore 

assets, renegotiating contracts with key 

customers, and enhancing the quality of 

infrastructure, is already making a difference. 

Transnet returned to profitability in 2004/2005, 

and also managed to reduce its heavy 

indebtedness. 

There is a new emphasis in Transnet on 

infrastructure, both on capital investment to grow 

the business, and on repair and replacement of 

existing infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure 

is ageing - for example "locomotives are on 

average 25 years old, 9 years older than 

international best practice" (DBSA page 105). 

Similarly, and in specific reference to Metrorail (the 

commuter rail service arm, recently transferred 

from Transnet to the Department of Transport), 

"while little is known about the condition of track 

and signalling equipment, it is widely regarded as 

now beyond its economic life." (DBSA page 106). 

Some systems (e.g. "train authorisation systems", 

which authorise movement of trains from one 

point to another) "have far exceeded their design 

life and are still functional, although approaching 

obsolescence." ("Spoornet infrastructure status 

report", May 2006). 

Despite the ageing of much of it, the infrastructure 

owned by Spoornet is "maintained in an 

operationally serviceable condition". There is a 

strict regime of condition monitoring - this 

information is "utilised by maintenance staff to 

repair faults and schedule planned maintenance 

interventions [also] the information is utilised for 

audit and long-term planning". (Spoornet ibid 

2006). 

There is evidence that the state of infrastructure 

has improved in recent years. For example 

"derailments caused due to the condition of the 

infrastructure" have decreased. 

Rail networks are ranked in priority order. "Core 

lines are maintained to a high level, whereas nonimportant 

and lower tonnage light and lowerdensity 

lines are maintained according to safety 

standards at low axle loading and low speeds." 

Furthermore, "the current good condition of the 

core network will be maintained by focusing track 

material replacement plans on these parts of the 

network. The level of material replacement will be 

increased to sustain the condition. Where funds 

are limited, expenditure on non-core lines will have 

to be reduced, and speed restrictions will then be 

imposed to keep them operational until closure 

from a safety perspective becomes imperative." 

(Spoornet 2006) 

The seven port engineers are obliged to do annual 

inspections of their infrastructure, and report to 

NPA. In the most recent such inspection, only one 

port scored less than "good", and the reasons for 

its current rating of "adequate" are specifically 

being addressed. NPA has laid down a 

maintenance policy, and each port puts together 

its own maintenance programme, unique to its 

environment, within the guidelines set out in the 

policy. ("A report on the infrastructure of the 

National Ports Authority", April 2006). SAPO has 

put similar measures in place, driven by the 

thinking that "the need to maintain the asset is 

paramount to … survival." ("Summarised report on 

the state of plant and equipment maintenance at 

SA Port Operations terminals", April 2006). 


inadequate skills and experience have been the 

main underlying cause of infrastructure 

deterioration, ageing and obsolescence, where 

these are experienced. 


The new emphasis within Transnet on 

infrastructure is mentioned above. The effect of 

this is shown in recently increased support to a 

number of existing programmes for maintenance 

(and upgrading and replacement). 

For example, Spoornet has a number of 

programmes underway to address maintenance 

backlogs and replace ageing and obsolescent 

infrastructure. An example is the "Rolling stock 

maintenance backlog project", a report on which 

c o m m e n c e s w i t h t h e w o r d s : " d u e t o 

underinvestment in the past the condition of 

Spoornet's rolling stock assets has deteriorated 

considerably." Accordingly, this project aims "to 

restore the condition of Spoornet's rolling stock 

assets in order to provide required resources and 

reliability to meet the expansion plan." (Spoornet: 

27 


"Rolling stock maintenance backlog project", 

January 2006). "A major risk is the lack of capacity 

to do the work timeously. Due to limited budgets, 

capacity has in some cases been destroyed over 

the last couple of years.” 

Summary 


Transnet's infrastructure has been its financial 

state, and in particular its budgets over the years 

for maintenance and replacement. Emphasis is 

now on improving the condition of strategic 

infrastructure and on expanding its capacity to 

meet demand. Also the conscious decision has 

been taken to reduce maintenance of non-core 

infrastructure, and instead use measures such as 

capacity and speed restrictions in order to keep 

operation within safety limits. 

i. Telkom 

Overview of Telkom's infrastructure and service 

delivery 

Telkom (a former SOE, privatised in 1997, and 

since listed on the Johannesburg Securities 

Exchange) is the dominant provider of 

telecommunications services in South Africa, 

offering a wide range of services and products, 

including: 

• fixed-line voice communications services, 

including local, long distance, international and 

fixed-to-mobile calls in the form of postpaid, 

prepaid and payphone services; 

• fixed-line data communications services, 

including data connectivity services, such as 

leased lines and packet-based services, 

managed data networking services and internet 

access and related information technology 

services; and 

• mobile services, including voice and data 

services in the form of contract, prepaid and 

community service telephones, through 

Vodacom, a 50%-owned joint venture (the other 

50% being owned by Vodafone UK). 

Information on the current replacement cost of all 

Telkom infrastructure "is not available for public 

disclosure". 


The sound financial state of Telkom, and therefore 

its capacity to allocate adequate resources to 

infrastructure management, is highly material to 

the state of its infrastructure. However two 

additional factors drive the state of its 

infrastructure and state of maintenance. 

The first factor is that the services that Telkom 

provides are customer-driven, and to some extent 

subject to competition, or can be substituted for. 

Customers demand a service that is reliable and 

continuously available. Telkom is aware that if it 

does not deliver, its customers will seek alternative 

options. Telkom is also aware that customers may 

reduce their use of an unreliable service. Either 

way, poor service may lead directly to a reduction 

in revenue to Telkom. 

The second factor is the rapid pace of development 

of information and communications technology. 

Generally, infrastructure that is not performing is 

quickly repaired or replaced. This has been the 

case in the past - for example investment in 

reducing the number of switching tiers on the 

voice network as well as migrating from microwave 

transmission technology to optic fiber - these 

led to improved reliability, as well as increasing the 

capacity. Telkom has no choice but to keep up with 

technology change, and its current investments in 

infrastructure must be planned with an eye to their 

migration to and enhancement by next generation 

networks that have increased capacity, enhanced 

functionality and reduced cost. Interoperability of 

the older and the new generation technologies 

must not be compromised. It is for these and other 

reasons that Telkom follows an evolutionary 

strategy in the deployment and retirement of 

infrastructure technologies. 

In this section of Annexure A that deals with 

Telkom, therefore, the status of its infrastructure 

is presented in terms of (i) technology change and 

(ii) investment in infrastructure, rather than in the 

form of statistics as to the state of infrastructure 

and the state of its maintenance. 

To illustrate growth and technology change: In 

1996 only 70% of fixed line connections were 

served by digital exchanges, and there were no 

broadband services. The following year, Telkom 


28

embarked on an extensive capital investment 

programme in its fixed-line business. Total 

investment was R42 billion, of which R28 billion 

was for network modernization and line rollout in 

order to comply with license obligations and 

prepare for competition. Today 99.99% of all fixed 

line connections are served by digital exchanges. 

Telkom is investing R 30 billion over the next five 

years in order to migrate from the existing 

networks to an "IP-Centric" (i.e. based on internet 

protocol) next generation network infrastructure. 

At the same time it is increasing the broadband 

penetration of the access network, deploying the 

relevant access technologies to suit the demand, 

geography and demographics of the areas to be 

served. 

Investment in maintenance largely depends on the 

age, capacity and demand placed on the 

infrastructure as well as the demand for next 

generation services. This varies from area to area. 

As Telkom migrates to the next generation 

network, maintenance investment in existing 

infrastructure is being managed to ensure that 

service delivery and service quality are not 

negatively impacted. 

generation technologies. Next-generation SDH, 

Metro Ethernet, WiMax, broadband access, and 

edge devices that can aggregate and deliver a 

number of services, will be deployed together with 

the operational support systems necessary to 

facilitate the development and delivery of an IP- 

Centric network. 

Summary 

In summary, the key factors pertinent to the state 

of Telkom's infrastructure have been its strong 

financial state, its customer orientation (and the 

presence of competition or substitution), and its 

selection of technologies in an environment of 

rapid technological development. The company's 

own maintenance policy and strong maintenance 

ethic have also been instrumental. 

Telkom has a state-of-the-art national network 

operations centre in Centurion that monitors its 

core network and coordinates and dispatches core 

network repair personnel. This operation centre 

enables Telkom to be proactive in anticipating, 

localising and isolating problems, such as 

congestion and cable breaks, so that they can be 

corrected promptly. The centre houses a real-time 

visual summary of the status of the entire network. 

The centre also incorporates an emergency 

restoration and control facility that manages all 

network failure restorations. Network service 

management specialists are able to obtain up-tothe-minute 

information from this facility, the 

better to promptly assist customers affected by 

major network failure. 


Telkom is actively positioning its infrastructure for 

the evolution towards a next generation network, 

with its greater reliability (and greater capacity). As 

the migration towards an IP-Centric network 

accelerates, so do Telkom's investments in new 

29 


Annexure B: How substandard maintenance can 

manifest itself in service delivery 

This annexure describes, in respect of some of the 

services, how substandard maintenance can 

manifest itself in the deterioration of infrastructure 

and facilities, with consequences for service 

delivery. 

The first part of the annexure discusses 

infrastructure and service delivery, and the second 

part discusses service delivery from buildings and 

facilities. 

• The most common cause of the water from 

water treatment works not meeting required 

quality standards is a breakdown of plant 

and/or the length of time that it takes to have 

that plant repaired satisfactorily and for it to 

resume working correctly. The most common 

causes of plant breakdown typically include 

inappropriate plant, faulty operating 

procedures, lack of routine maintenance, and 

overload. 

• The most common problem experienced with 

water reticulation systems is leakage of water. 

A variety of factors could contribute to this, 

including the use of incorrect procedures at the 

time of laying the pipes, damage due to 

excavations taking place near to pipes, use of 

inappropriate pipe materials (and consequent 

corrosion of the pipes), inappropriate repair 

procedures, and the ageing of the pipes. Illegal 

connections exacerbate the situation. 

• Municipalities are usually responsible for 

maintaining the waterborne sanitation piped 

network, and frequently also the pumping 

facilities. The most common problems 

experienced with waterborne sanitation 

reticulation systems are sanitation spills from 

overloading of the system and from blockages 

caused by roots of trees, foreign objects, 

breakages and deterioration of the network. 

Routine maintenance of sewers is required to 

minimise these sewerage spills. 

• The most important indicator of wastewater 

treatment works performance is the quality 

of the effluent from the works, before it is 

discharged into the watercourse, or whatever 

other arrangement is agreed to in terms of the 

license or other form of authorisation from 

DWAF for the works to operate. The most 

common causes of not meeting required 

standards are very much the same as those for 

water treatment works, described above. 

• The most common causes of the failure of 

electricity reticulation systems are faulty 

operating procedures, lack of planned 

maintenance, damage (e.g. to underground 

cables) during construction nearby, 

overloading, and equipment ageing. Cable theft 

and illegal connections sometimes contribute 

to failure. 

• The most common cause of the failure of roads 

is neglect neglect of routine maintenance, and 

neglect to repair damage without delay. Neglect 

of surface damage or of cracking leads to water 

penetration of the underlying layers, and 

consequent erosion of these layers followed by 

loss of portion of the paved surface (the 

formation of "potholes"). Overloading of freight 

vehicles is sometimes a contributor to failure. 

The next few paragraphs describe, in respect of 

some facilities, how substandard maintenance can 

manifest itself in service delivery. 

The effect of under-maintained health and 

education facilities is felt at several levels. For 

example, in a hospital, a patient might, because of 

a combination of factors that includes equipment 

failure (but also include too little equipment and 

staff) wait for days to receive a procedure that 

should take less than a day. For another example, 

qualified staff, in short enough supply as it is, are 

thanks to the same combination of factors 

disincentivised to work in the public sector. For a 

third example, equipment hasn't completely 

failed, but it is no longer fully effective - an 

example is that a steam boiler does work, but the 

reticulation leaks so much that steam is no longer 

conveyed to some areas of the hospital. 

However the effect of under-maintained hospital 

and education facilities can also be an immediate 

risk to the health of staff, learners and patients. 

The CSIR database documents examples of the 

following: 

• Hospital-acquired infection is a major cause of 

hospital deaths, increased stay and high costs 

in the USA and Europe (where it is measured). 

This is not measured in South Africa, but if it 

were, there is no doubt it would be at 

unacceptable levels. 

• Fire equipment and systems (including fire and 

smoke doors) are not maintained (or have even 

been removed), resulting in massive fire risk. 

• Broken balustrades on upper floors at schools, 

resulting in pupils falling. 

• Ceiling and roof collapses at schools. 


30

notes

notes

dr rodney milford 

mr molefi kubuzie 

manager; construction industry performance 

rodneym@cidb.org.za 

(012) 482 7238 

director; valuation services 

department of public works 

molefi.kubuzie@dpw.gov.za 

(012) 337 3175 

cidb contact details 

physical address: block n&r, sabs campus, dr lategan road, groenkloof, pretoria, south africa 

telephone: +27 (0)12 482 7200 | fax: +27 (0)12 343 7153 

website: www.cidb.org.za | e-mail: info@cidb.org.za

National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy - Construction Industry ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?